Posted on 01/23/2013 8:16:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
While the usual wishful thinking about the Tea Party's demise is being bantered about in the left-wing blogosphere, one of our own -- California Republican political consultant Tony Quinn -- recently joined the chorus of prognosticators. His premise is that because the Tea Party fielded "idiot" candidates like Angle and O'Donnell in 2010 and Akin and Mourdock in 2012, Republicans lost the Senate, and their strident calls for fiscal sanity, limited government, and lower taxes caused all manner of mayhem for Boehner in the House, ultimately empowering Obama and the Democrats.
Support for Christine O'Donnell was misplaced, even though her opponent, Mike Castle, did not vote with Republicans 100% of the time. His seat was a guaranteed win that we needed. If Republicans and the grassroots had any kind of unified strategy or means of communication, the Delaware senate seat would have been a strategic gain even if it wasn't a principled one.
This battle between candidates whose conservative principles jive 100% with the Tea Party and those who have some differences but could win their liberal states is nothing new. Some of us hold tight to our conservative principles but recognize the importance of strategic alliances to gain a seat in a liberal district -- there's no sense riding your principles over the cliff. Others don't, and so we often find ourselves at odds in primaries.
Tea Party and Republican support for Todd Akin and Mourdock plunged after their absurd remarks (even though they remained on the ticket). But Akin was no more a Tea Party candidate than his primary competitors. He won because of a three-way conservative race that split the votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
My agenda is the Buckley Rule - nominate the most conservative candidate that CAN win. Not difficult to figure out. Joke candidates like Christine O' Donnell do not fall into that category. Most thoughtful political analyst and spectators understood she would lose in a landslide and hurt conservatives statewide, people like yourself didn't get that. This article, which is in support of the Tea Party, says the very same thing that I did. I'm sorry you are not capable of critical thought when it comes to these issues, but backing silly candidates that can't win gets us nowhere. Losers like O'Donnell are not even worth using to make a point since they do too much damage to the party and potentially other candidates.
Just about everyone who conservatives put their hopes in today for the future, are tea party candidates.
Your agenda is clear because you are attacking conservatism in general, the tea party’s existence.
There is no election going on, no primary, yet your sole purpose at FR is to constantly harp on the same theme over and over, move left, support rinos, choose rinos, prefer rinos, just get used to thinking in terms of rinos only.
You are on a mission to weaken conservatism, period.
You don’t need to know any names of future candidates, or their qualifications or odds for winning, because your mission never changes, your message is always the same, move left, all you know is that someone in some future race will be more liberal than the other, and those unknown rinos are who you are already fighting for, sight unseen.
You don't have the political insight to understand winning this war against the left requires intelligent tactics and a long term strategy. It means taking stock of where we are and finding unity among enough conservatives to achieve a governing majority. We won't get far by just defaulting to the most "pure" candidate at all times. I understand that approach is simplistic and appealing to you, but it doesn't work very well. That is why nominating the most conservative candidate that CAN win is an important lesson and the right way to go. Being correct is just not enough. If it was, this nation wouldn't be in the mess we're in. In politics, the candidate is often more important than his or her policy positions. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. Speaking out against dopey candidates like O'Donnell is always going to make short sighted people like you angry, but it needs to be done.
You seem to be talking to the wrong person because your arguments don’t apply to me, I worked on Scott Brown’s first Senate campaign, so you can just save whatever all this gibberish about 100% and purity is, for someone else.
You are the purist, you would prevent ‘problems’ like Ted Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, and Toomey, and Deb Fischer, and conservative Governors and congress people.
You have a single, constant message, move left.
I’m pointing out that you don’t need an election, there isn’t an election going on right now, but your agenda is fixed in stone, constantly promote a move to the left at FR, always promoting the idea that conservatism is bad, destructive, a losing effort, and that the democrats have the winning message, the proper politics, the better candidates, that the GOP is not and should not be conservative, that the GOP is only useful and valid when it is closer to the democrats.
There is no election going on, no candidates, but you are already pushing the rinos, whoever they will be, you don’t need to know specifics you just want to make sure that you are throwing flowers in their path.
Nonsense. Absolute, utter hogwash. I especially supported Rubio, Toomey, and Cruz. Heck, I even supported Mourdoch because I figured he was a reasonably good gamble in a red state to get a much more conservative Senator. It turned out I was wrong, Mourdoch ended up being poor candidate who shot himself in the foot with his rape comments. What I don't do is support joke candidates that have no chance to win like Christine O Donnell. You continue to confuse political reality with some leftwing conspiracy.
Romney supported Mourdock also, it is good that you did, what is this hangup you have about Christine O’Donnell, you mention her 2010 race in every post, she won the nomination because the people voted for her, and the night she won, Karl Rove started on a week long campaign to wash away any momentum she gained, but you chant her name as though her loss, in a race that analysis showed Castle would have lost also, is reason enough to send back all the dozens of tea party victories for moving America in the right direction and creating opposition to the democrats.
We need more tea party victories like Cruz and Rubio, and Toomey and Rand Paul, and all those governors and congress people, not fewer.
You aren’t interested in political reality, the biggest disaster of the 2012 election was the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, radical cult leader, Mitt Romney, yet what strategy are you working on? To create more Romneys, to move the party left, to work against the tea party, to move FR left.
No elections going on, no candidates, yet you are already running an obsessive campaign for the more liberal candidates, and to weaken any tea party influence.
Just lay your agenda aside for a few months, take a break, at least wait and see who is running before you start telling us that we have to choose whoever is the most liberal in the race.
I say go big.
The time is now. Present a real, live. running competition to the GOP.
Today.
And leading up to 2016. The whole ballgame.
Right now.
not only that but go after the biggest fish in the pond- Boehner
unseating him would mean a lot, but it has to be done in the primaries!!
no one votes in primaries except mayby 10% of the elegible voters, and usually the GOP employees ... JUST FREEPERS ALONE could affect the outcome of primary elections and JUST BY SHOWING UP
Part of what the article is about is that Tea Party and movement conservatives need to do a better job of nominating candidates. The article speaks directly to the mistake the Tea Party made in supporting O'Donnell. As I recall, you and I argued this very point years ago. Nominating O'Donnell was dumb, as was nominating Angle and some of the other extremely poor statewide candidates the Tea Party has backed. We are throwing seats away on candidates that aren't skilled enough to win statewide, and it needs to stop. You have consistently been someone who doesn't seem to understand that we need to run the most conservative candidate that CAN win, not just the most conservative candidate.
Romney supported Mourdock also, it is good that you did
I'm not so sure. I thought Mourdock was a good gamble. A chance to get a much more conservative candidate in a red state. He lost by 6 points and was struggling even before his rape comments that killed off his campaign. We lost a seat here in a state we should have easily won. I was wrong about Mourdoch, I thought he'd do better. I think blowing a seat like this requires we make extra sure we are putting a GOOD candidate up before we take these kinds of gambles. Good entails more than just very conservative, it means being a skilled politician who can withstand intense scrutiny.
You aren’t interested in political reality,
Wrong. I am only interested in political reality. That's why I don't rah-rah stupid ideas, dopey conspiracy theories and joke candidates that make people feel great but can't possibly win. You bet people get mad at that. They don't want to hear difficult realities.
the biggest disaster of the 2012 election was the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, radical cult leader, Mitt Romney, yet what strategy are you working on? To create more Romneys, to move the party left, to work against the tea party, to move FR left.
I didn't support Mitt Romney in the primaries, so what's your point? I initially backed Perry - and had to defend him, one of the best conservative governor's in the US, against the dopey Palin brigades who were trying to knock him out since they mistakenly believed Sarah was running. Then when Perry proved he couldn't debate on a national stage I backed Gingrich. I supported Romney only once it was obvious he'd be the nominee. What I did do is defend him from the kind of Mormon bashing you exhibit here. There is no reason to call him a "cult leader" or otherwise bash the man's religion.
No elections going on, no candidates, yet you are already running an obsessive campaign for the more liberal candidates, and to weaken any tea party influence.
Where are you getting this nonsense? Do you just boil over with anger the minute anyone discusses ways to reconcile the fact that the fast growing libertarian(ish) wing of the party is just not interested in focusing on social issues? I got bad news for you pal, this is a real issue that is playing itself out - and not in social conservatives favor. More and more people on the right want to drop the focus on social issues as you can see even among many here on FR. Discussing this, and how we can try to unify the right is not pushing the party to the left. It's being realistic and trying to figure out how to unify the opposition to the left before it's too late (which it may already be).
Just lay your agenda aside for a few months, take a break
There is no break in politics. Ever. That is a mistake too many conservatives already make.
I looked at some of your posting history, it was largely years of you saying two things, one that you are a political Guru, the only person who understands politics, and conservatives are all naive idiots, and not brilliant like you, etc, and always move left, always go for the rino, always resist conservatism.
Exactly what we see you posting on this thread, over, and over, and over, and over.
You don’t know who will run, what the issues will be, what the political climate will be in the future, but here you are, campaigning for the unnamed rinos in advance, fighting the influence of the tea party and the Reagan wing of the GOP.
Your agenda sucks, and when you pursue it without even the cover of any actual races or candidates to hide behind, then it is crystal clear to everyone.
Just take a break from your war against the tea party, at least wait until there is an actual race to argue over.
You're not a serious person ansel. You're right back to the same whining and name calling you began with. When you grow up, at least politically, perhaps you will understand some of what I've been telling you. Until then you are just spewing useless garbage and accomplishing nothing.
I’m very serious, your rino agenda sucks, and is close to destroying the GOP.
Even without a specific candidate or race taking place, you are deeply immersed in moving the future races to the left, weakening the tea party and it’s support, marginalizing conservatives.
You just continue on with your diarrhea of the mouth, spouting insults and calling people you disagree with a RINO. That's all you seem capable of. Even on this thread you've added nothing of value to the debate.
By the way, the Republican Party is not going to be destroyed. Overall, the party is probably more conservative now than it has been in modern history - especially when compared to what it was in the 50's, 60's and 70's when it was fine with 70%+ tax rates, price controls, the creation of the EPA, etc. Though we've inflicted some grievous self inflicted wounds on ourselves with some bad nominees (ding bats like O'Donnell), overall we are still succeeding in pushing the party to the right on many issues. It takes time in a system like ours, but the idea that we'd give up now and go make yet another 3rd party is laughable (you already have your choice of about 50 3rd parties). Impatient people who have no grasp of political realities like you will continue predicting the end of the GOP, yet it will almost certainly remain the 2nd leg of our two party system for generations to come.
Excellent and thoughtful post, Longbow. It’s the GOP of the 50’s that sat idly by while FDR whittled the Constitution away. We needed the Soviets to keep our side clear.
We’re winning. We hold 30 governorships and look at the eledction map. We lost the Senate due to political incompetence on the part of the candidates. Obama and Co. are going too far. Unless we flub it we’ll take the Senate in 2014. The Dems are the party in trouble. How do they hold their coalition together?
Exactly, with the lessons learned in 2010 and 2012, we have a good shot of retaking the Senate in 2014. That means being sure to nominate excellent candidates. Being right on the issues just isn't enough, we need folks with good political skills too.
It’s the GOP of the 50’s that sat idly by while FDR whittled the Constitution away.
The Republican party didn't even really start being a real conservative party till Gingrich's revolution in 94'. Reagan was a conservative, but much of the party wasn't particularly so. And yeah, the GOP of the 50's, 60's and 70's were country clubbers who were mostly fine with the status quo the Democrats created.
The Dems are the party in trouble. How do they hold their coalition together?
We seem to do especially well on the local level where there is vastly less media attention. We've won hundreds upon hundreds of state legislative seats over the last couple cycles. Where the Democrats don't have the media to act as their propaganda arm, they tend to struggle far more. And yeah, we have a great bench now. We've got some terrific governors who may run in 2016. Jindal, Walker, Haley, all have potential.
Like so many of your posts to me, you seem to be posting to the wrong person, I don’t push third parties, don’t support a third party, don’t vote third party, and I know that conservatives have moved the party right in recent decades, it is something that I point out often on FR, one of my themes, and it happened in spite of people like you, that is why your constant efforts to stop conservative progress annoys so many of us.
Dingbats from the self destructing Senate incumbent Scott Brown, to presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the goofy, pro-abortion cult leader promoting the homosexual agenda, the rinos rejecting conservatives, rejecting the tea party, snubbing Christians and the conservative leader Governor Palin, and making Christie their convention speaker, the rinos are willing to lose elections to keep the party from being conservative.
I keep appealing to you to lay off for a while, wait until an election before you start attacking conservatives and the tea party, but your agenda drives you relentlessly.
You aren’t arguing with me about anything other than that you want to promote rinoism even when there is no race or candidate to demonize, that must be why you are trying to make up some fake persona to argue against, so that it doesn’t just sound totally like liberal trolling.
Your only argument against me on this thread, is that you want to fight for rinos unnamed, in an election that isn’t taking place anywhere yet, and against the tea party.
In other words, a chant of move left, moderate, don’t support the tea party, look for the rino in future elections.
>>>The Dems are the party in trouble. How do they hold their coalition together?<<<
The same way they did in 2012.
They take my money and yours and buy their constituents free sh!t with it.
And they are fully supported in, and never challenged by, the national media as regards that strategy.
We have incompetent candidates? Look at Elizabeth Warren. Look at Harry Reid (I know he wasn’t up this time but still...) Look at Nancy Pelosi. Charlie Rangel. Alan Grayson. Barbara Boxer. Robert Menendez. Bill Nelson. Bob Casey.
Need I go on?
I said for YOU to take a break from YOUR agenda.
Quit fighting the tea party and the Reagan wing of the GOP for awhile, especially at freerepublic, at least wait until you can merely fight for some particular rino, rather than just warring against conservatism and the tea party in general.
What? You just got done posting that the Republican party was in danger of being destroyed.
You're words:
I’m very serious, your rino agenda sucks, and is close to destroying the GOP.
You're just puking out nonsense that you can't even keep track of. The GOP is in no danger of being destroyed. We've been hearing this hyperventilating that the Republican party was about to be destroyed every election cycle and it isn't going to happen.
Your only argument against me on this thread, is that you want to fight for rinos unnamed, in an election that isn’t taking place anywhere yet, and against the tea party.
What are you talking about? You don't even make sense. You should never have posted to me in the first place. You keep throwing the RINO charge out (which you do against anyone you don't agree with) and it's nonsensical. Opposing nominating bad candidates like O'Donnell and Angle doesn't mean folks prefer moderates. It means go with the most conservative candidate that CAN win - and sometimes that means a far from ideal squish when there is no better alternative that CAN win. The Democrats, for example, are only too happen to swipe seats from us in red states by running fake conservatives. They run a fraud like Manchin who doesn't even vote with them much of the time, but the left doesn't care because they are only using him to deny us a seat. When we can't recruit folks that have a real shot of winning, then we need to sometimes use these same tactics against the Democrats.
You aren’t arguing with me about anything other than that you want to promote rinoism even when there is no race or candidate to demonize, that must be why you are trying to make up some fake persona to argue against, so that it doesn’t just sound totally like liberal trolling.
Again more insults, more gibberish. You seem utterly lost.
nominee Mitt Romney, the goofy, pro-abortion cult leader
What is the point of making fun of the man's religion. There is no reason to call Romney a cult leader. Pretty much no one here on FR wanted Mitt as the nominee, but the hatred toward his Mormon faith is just unnecessary and nasty. You really demonstrate what a shallow, small person you are when you do stuff like that. This is the kind of vileness that comes through in your posts. It doesn't paint a flattering picture of yourself.
Now take a deep breath, and think for a minute, you will see how silly it is to think that sentence identifies someone as a member of a third party rather than someone who thinks that the GOP is in deep trouble, that having just run on abortion and homosexualizing the military and Boy Scout leaders and Romneycare and against Christians, Palin, the tea party and conservatives, has put it's future in jeopardy.
Romney managing to lose to Jimmy Carter's second term, proves that.
I know that part of the divide between you and conservatives, is the Christian faith, but Bishop Romney being a leader in an anti-Christian cult, and running on homosexuality and abortion, and rinoism, cost America dearly.
You aren’t arguing with me about anything other than that you want to promote rinoism even when there is no race or candidate to demonize, that must be why you are trying to make up some fake persona to argue against, so that it doesn’t just sound totally like liberal trolling.
Your only argument against me on this thread, is that you want to fight for rinos unnamed, in an election that isn’t taking place anywhere yet, and against the tea party.
In other words, a chant of move left, moderate, don’t support the tea party, look for the rino in future elections (and not in a good way).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.